Seaport Coalition Continues Legal Fight Against Tower Planned for 250 Water Street
The latest round in the ongoing legal battle over the proposal to build a tall residential tower in the South Street Seaport neighborhood has begun. The South Street Seaport Coalition, a confederation of local groups opposed to plans to erect a large development at 250 Water Street, filed with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court on June 29 a Motion to Reargue and Leave to Appeal. This stems from a July 2022 lawsuit brought by the Coalition, arguing that the City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission (from which approval is needed for the project to move forward, because it is located within the legally protected South Street Seaport Historic District) had unlawfully exceeded its authority when it okayed the plan.
This filing seeks to overturn a June 6 ruling by the Appellate Division that reversed an earlier victory for the Coalition, the January 12 ruling by State Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron which handed down a stinging rebuke to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), and by extension, to the entire proposed project.
At issue is the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) that the LPC issued for the project in May 2021. In his January ruling on the original lawsuit, Judge Engoron decried what he termed “an impermissible quid pro quo” under which LPC was influenced to issue the COA based on other public benefits that the developer, Howard Hughes Corporation (HHC), has promised in exchange for permission to build the tower, such as funding for the South Street Seaport Museum and the creation of at least 70 affordable apartments within the new building. While Judge Engoron does not dispute that such benefits would be valuable and important, he concluded that consideration of them falls outside of the LPC’s legal authority. The Judge also slammed what he called “extensive coordination, over a period of more than three years, between LPC and [HHC] on how to provide ‘political cover’ for the project,” going so far as to note that “representatives of [HHC] met and communicated with LPC staff continuously from January 2018 through (and beyond) October 2020, when [HHC] filed its application for a COA,” and that “the week before the first public hearing, LPC senior staff met privately with [HHC] representatives to conduct a ‘practice hearing.’”
This decision was appealed by the City, and subsequently nullified by the Appellate Division, where a five-judge panel ruled unanimously on June 6 that “LPC’s determination to issue a COA, following its extensive consideration of the factors set forth in Administrative Code of the City of New York… was not arbitrary and capricious or irrational. The COA itself sets forth the basis for LPC’s determination, which has ample support in the record and did not rely on improper considerations.”
In a brief filed on June 29, the Coalition argues that “this case goes to issues at the core of an administrative agency’s obligations under the law, obligations designed to ensure an agency’s decisions are—and appear to be—fair and objective based on considerations properly before the agency and within its sphere of expertise. When, as here, an agency deviates from those obligations, it casts doubt on the efficacy and legitimacy of administrative agencies and the inescapably vital role they play in modern governance.”
This pleading seeks two forms of relief—either a new hearing before the Appellate Division to clarify arguments originally made prior to the June 6 ruling, or else permission to bypass the Appellate Division and file with the Court of Appeals, the State’s highest level of judicial review.
When the Appellate Division issued its June 6 ruling, HHC’s New York Region co-president, Zach Winick, said, “we are gratified by the court’s decision, which confirms what we have maintained all along: the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s approval of our project was proper.”
When filling its June 29 motion, the Coalition said in a statement, “there is a long-standing public interest in upholding the integrity of the LPC and the efficacy of the Landmarks Law, which expressly states that LPC may only rule upon design, without considering community benefits. It is hard to fight City Hall. Community Boards, grassroots organizations and volunteers must resort to the legal system, with everyday citizens devoting scarce time and resources to battle big real estate.”
In response to the Coalition’s new motion, a spokesman for HHC said, “we remain confident that, as the Appellate Division unanimously recognized, the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s approval was made in full compliance with the landmarks law.”